41. Alba Patio de Makati, vs. Alba Patio de Makati Employees Association, G. R. No.

L-
37922, March 16, 1984

Facts: On 30 April 1973, the Court of Industrial Relations (CIR) rendered a decision in Alba
Patio de Makati Employees Association vs. Alba Patio de Makati, declaring guilty of unfair labor
practices and to reinstate the herein four (4) individual complainants with full back wages. The
NLRC later denied the petitions and ruled in favor of the Employees.

Without being fully reinstated however some of the fired employees submitted documents
stating that the Judgements were satisfied and that they have received their wages, due to
those documents the labor arbiter in charge closed and terminated the case.

However when some of the workers discovered that they were not rehired they complained to
the NLRC which voided the arbiters order and directed the immediate enforcement of the
decision. The petitioner questioned the jurisdiction of the NLRC since the case was already
closed, the opening of which is against the principle of res judicata.

Issue: Whether or not the NLRC still had jurisdiction to issue the resolution or order, and setting
aside the Labor Arbiter's order.

Held: Yes. The petition is bereft of merit. The court may at its discretion set aside technicalities
in the interest of substantial justice. The NLRC can set aside orders of its arbiters if it is void and
contra to the decision of the court.

The petitioners cannot question the same jurisdiction that they asked for assistance if they failed
to obtain a favorable decision.

42. Alhambra Industries, Inc. vs. CIR

Facts: Alhambra Industries was charged of discriminating and denying certain drivers and
helpers of rights guaranteed to them by the CBA. Alhambra countered in the CIR that those
persons were not actually their employees but rather the employees of their employees who
exercised full authorities over them. The CIR found this claim to be meritorious and ruled
against Alhambra.

Alhambra appealed to the Supreme Court accepting the fact that the drivers and helpers were
indeed their employees, but questioned the decision that rendered to them the charge of unfair
labor practices, alleging that the lower courts was not able to prove that fact since Alhambra
was waiting on the finding of the court whether the status of the drivers and helpers were their
employees.
Issue: In a dispute regarding the relationship of an employer-employee can an employer wait on
the decision of the court granting the status of employee before giving them the benefits of an
employee? Can this be an excuse to unfair labor practice?

Held: No. That contention is meritorious. Since there was an employer-employee relationship
from the start then petitioners should have treated them as employees from the beginning and
not after. The artifice designed by Alhambra to escape their obligations is in itself an unfair labor
practice.

BENGUET CONSOLIDATED, INC. vs. BCI EMPLOYEES & WORKERS UNION-PAFLU

Facts: Benguet-Balatoc Workers Union (BBWU), for and in behalf of all Benguet
Consolidated, Inc (BENGUET) employees into a Collective Bargaining Contract. It likewise
embodied a No-Strike, No-Lockout clause.

3 years later, a certification election was conducted by the Department of Labor among all the
rank and file employees of BENGUET in the same collective bargaining units. BCI
EMPLOYEES & WORKERS UNION (UNION) obtained more than 50% of the total number of
votes, defeating BBWU.

Later on, the UNION filed a notice of strike against BENGUET. UNION members who were
BENGUET employees went on strike, and some of the properties of the BENGUET were
damaged as a result of the strike.

BENGUET sued UNION to recover the amount the former incurred for the repair of the
damaged properties resulting from the strike. BENGUET also argued that the UNION violated
the CONTRACT which has a stipulation not to strike during the effectivity thereof.

Defendants unions and their presidents defended that: (1) they were not bound by the
CONTRACT which BBWU, the defeated union, had executed with BENGUET; (2) the strike was
due, among others, to unfair labor practices of BENGUET; and (3) the strike was lawful and in
the exercise of the legitimate rights of UNION-PAFLU under Republic Act 875.

The trial court dismissed the complaint on the ground that the CONTRACT, particularly the No-
Strike clause, did not bind defendants. BENGUET interposed the present appeal.

Issue: Did the Collective Bargaining Contract executed between Benguet and BBWU
automatically bind UNION-PAFLU upon its certification, as sole bargaining representative of all
BENGUET employees?

Held:
NO. BENGUETs reliance upon the Principle of Substitution is totally misplaced. The principle
merely states that employees cannot change their CBA just because they changed their agents.
It does not mean that a new agent would assume all the previous agents undertakings. BBWU
themselves bound their own officers not to strike, not the UNION-PAFLU

National Development Company vs. NDC Employees and Worker's Union, L-32387,
August 19,1975,

Facts: NDC was sued by its UNION on its failure to comply with a 7% christmas bonus
increase. NDCs defense is as follows:

1.) sovereign immunity since it is a government corporation.

2.) The matter is civil in nature the CIR having no jurisdiction.
3.) The company cannot comply with the increase since it was at a loss.
4.) The UNION failed to comply with the grievance machinery failing to exhaust all available
remedies.

Issues: Whether or not any of the defenses mentioned above is tenable with regards to
noncompliance of a CBA.

Held: The court dismissed the petition.

On the first issue: Sovereign immunity was lost when the NDC descended to the level of a
private individual.

On the second issue: The complaint charged the NDC with ULP. It is settled that the allegation
of the complaint, NOT THE EVIDENCE is the determination on which court has the jurisdiction.

On the third issue: There is no proof that NDC operated at a loss, in fact it was clear that they in
fact had profits.

On the fourth issue: A grievance machinery is provided for in the existing collective bargaining
agreement, this grievance machineryor its compositionis nowhere identified nor organized
in the contract. In short, the grievance machinery does not exist.

Oceanic Pharmacal Employees Union [FFW] vs. Inciong, L-50568, November 7, 1979, 94
SCRA 270

Facts: Oceanic Pharmacal (OCEANIC) issued holiday pays to its rank and file with the clause
stating that should the laws change then the holiday pays too will change. Following a new PD
stating that monthly salaried personnel who worked more than 313 days was considered fully
paid OCEANIC cancelled its holiday pay.

The UNION filed suit after exhausting all possible internal remedies. The Arbiter ruled in favor of
the UNION as did the NLRC, but the Secretary of Labor reversed their decisions due to lack of
merit.
Issue: Would a new PD or enacting law be a compelling reason to cancel holiday pays?

Held: NO. Evidently, there is no legal basis for the withdrawal of holiday benefits by the
Company. Consequently, its violation of the Supplementary Agreement constitutes unfair labor
practice.

Rule IV, Book III of the Implementing Rules and Regulations provides: Sec. 11. Relation to
agreements. Nothing in this Rule shall justify an employer in withdrawing or reducing any
benefits, supplements or payments for unworked holidays as provided it) existing individual or
collective agreement or employer practice or policy."